Clinton-Bush Gun Control Enabled Fort Hood Massacre

A Clinton Administration revision to Department of Defense Directive 5210.56 — Army Regulation 190-14, dated 12 March 1993 — permits the Secretary of the Army to authorize military personnel to carry firearms “on a case by case basis” for personal protection within the continental United States, but forbids military personnel to carry their own personal firearms and both requires “a credible and specific threat” before firearms be issued for military personnel to protect themselves. It further directs that firearms “not be issued indiscriminately for that purpose.”

Thus did President Bill Clinton — Commander-in-Chief of the United States Army — apply to American military personnel under his command the same anti-gun policies his administration and a Democratic-controlled Congress applied to American civilians in the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons ban of 1994.

This Clinton policy of restricting military personnel from routinely carrying arms for protection was left in effect for the eight years of the administration of President George W. Bush — even after the 9/11 terror attacks — and even though Republicans held both the White House and majority control of both houses of Congress from January 2003 to January 2007.

John McHugh became the 21st Secretary of the U.S. Army on September 21, 2009, seven weeks prior to U.S. Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s November 5, 2009 shooting spree that murdered 13 and wounded another 38. Secretary McHugh — not reported as having the psychic power of precognition — issued no authorization for Fort Hood military personnel to be issued arms for personal protection against the specific threat of attack by Major Hasan.

Veterans Day is this Wednesday. How many times will “thank you for your service” pass the lips of talk-radio gurus who since 9/11 have sported American flag lapel pins, play-listed War-on-Terror country music, and made the Wounded Warrior Project a centerpiece of their swaggering patriotism?

It all rings so hollow now when their punditry following the Fort Hood Massacre makes it clear the bastions of American conservatism hate Jihadis far more than they love G.I.’s.

If George Washington had learned that soldiers under his command had died from a turncoat attack within an American Fort — not because arms weren’t available for his men to defend themselves but because an American officer didn’t trust American soldiers to bear arms — I’m fairly certain that American officer would have been summarily executed by the same firing squad as the turncoat.

Yet radio talkers debate only whether the shooter was driven by ideology or madness, and have no anger — or even questions — about a sixteen-year-old Department of Defense policy that five days ago left both G.I.’s and civilians on an army base in Texas as defenseless as toddlers in a preschool.

Ideology colors emotional responses, and even long-term activists who have worked to advance the right of self-protection have lost their sight-picture in the fog of the War on Terror. The man I’ve often called my Yoda on gun-self-defense issues — Randall N. Herrst, JD, of the Center for the Study of Crime — wrote in a Sunday morning posting to the Individual Sovereignty/Libertarian Yahoo Group his security concerns with Hassan’s anti-Americanism not being acted upon by the Army, President Obama’s not using the term “war on terror,” left-wing media, and civilian police being used to protect a military base post-9/11, but this Lion of the Second Amendment wasn’t even aware of the Department of Defense policy which bans soldiers from routinely carrying arms for protection … much less express seething anger at American soldiers not being trusted to bear arms.

The lack of even a committed Second Amendment activist’s’ concern with the systematic disarmament of American soldiers on base — leaving them defenseless for murder by a single illegally-armed attacker with time to repeatedly reload — bewilders me. The explanation can have nothing to do with Posse Comitatus Act restrictions on the Army being deployed for civilian law enforcement when we’re considering individual soldiers defending their own lives from attack.

Contrast this with libertarian author Brad Linaweaver, who told me he considers American soldiers being armed for protection even more important than the arming of police.

Those directly affected by the vulnerability of American soldiers see the matter even more poignantly.

Brian Singer, an American soldier currently deployed to Iraq but whose home station is Fort Hood, commented on a previous article of mine about the massacre that “Its not just the military affected by this heinous policy. Our spouses and children suffer under victim disarmament as well. Second, not only are civilian CCWs not recognized, military members are required to register their firearms as well. Can you believe this insanity?”

Chor Xiong, father of 23-year-old Fort Hood Massacre victim Kham Xiong, spoke of his son’s love of hunting, and told KSTP-TV, “The sad part is that he had been taught and been trained to protect and to fight. Yet it’s such a tragedy that he did not have the opportunity to protect himself and the base.”

Where is the shock and outrage for American conservatives to learn that even the Army is made toothless by politically-correct gun control?

Talk radio listeners as angry as I am about the lack of time their favorite talk hosts have spent on the victim disarmament of even American servicemen and women should use this Veterans Day as the opportunity to call in and express their feelings. Arming men and women who take seriously the idea of defending their country from bad guys can be nothing but a gift that keeps on giving.

What politician had the most to do with letting these muslime pigs into our country? Now that they are here, I would think the reasonable thing to do is carry a piece not advertise you are unarmed. BTW, the politician who had the most to do with this ragheads presence would be Sen Teddy Kennedy and his immigration reform of the late 1960s. Can’t have too many white people in a white country.

If any American servicemember with a combat MOS isn’t fit to carry any personal or military issue firearm at ALL times, then they aren’t fit to carry one in theater and should be discharged. Otherwise, ALL military servicemembers should be permitted to carry any personal or military firearm they want anywhere US jurisdiction applies, ie, EVERYWHERE in the US. PERIOD.

15
posted on 11/09/2009 1:04:47 PM PST
by piytar
(Screw you NRC, Steele, Graham, and the rest of the lib-loser GOP. WE'RE TAKING OUR PARTY BACK!)

kittykat77 wrote:
“What was the policy before the Clinton directive? Were all soldiers allowed to carry weapons at all (or some) times on US bases? What was the policy regarding personal (civilian) guns on US bases?”

“The officer corps and the civilians in charge don’t give a f*ck if you are able to protect yourself, they just want you to obey.”

A great big F*ckin’ BRAVO SIERRA on that. I carry every day, I would rather EVERYBODY who works for me and for whose security I’m responsible were carrying a weapon AT ALL TIMES. I carry in church, at the courthouse, at high school football games - everywhere. It’s easier for me than for some, because I have the class of CHL that lets me do so, but everybody ought to know how to shoot and be prepared to do so.

Can I assume your military service, for which I thank you, was immediately post-Vietnam?

In my opinion you are the exception to the rule. You and other officers like you are not in the position to make that call.

The cost and number of man-hours of training and oversight required to satisfy the senior officers/civilians and allow every capable person to be armed at all times would make this program impractical.

My service was from 85-91 all enlisted, mostly at sea, and went from no weapons training to being in charge of the in-port and at-sea security alert weapons locker.

I was a horrible shot. Although since we were issued 12ga. shotguns with 00-buck to be used inside cramped steel compartments, I suspect in a real "security alert" we would have ended up with many ricochet related injuries.

"He wouldnt have opened fire in the first place if he knew armed soldiers in the room would immediately shoot back."

Then arm every man woman & child under the same logic.

I say we isolate the Islamocists. We did something like this in WWII with the Japanese because we did not know if they were going to do something or not. If they don't like the isolation (until the war is over in 25 years), let them leave the country. Otherwise, you are inviting the trouble from every kook ball that gets mad at the traffic. One guy here in AZ just drove up to the photo radar car and shot the attendant through the window. He was mad at photo radar. So, is this better?

So while Clinton was vastly EXPANDING the federal agents who could carry a firearm (poultry inspectors were authorized to carry a firearm when on the job), he was LIMITING the soldier’s ability to defend themselves.

29
posted on 11/09/2009 2:01:09 PM PST
by Blood of Tyrants
(The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)

All privately owned firearms are locked up on base/post if the owner lives on base/post.

If you live off-base/post, you can keep them at your residence as long as they are legally obtained.

Taking away more guns from the personnel on post/base will not make it safer.

This POS terrorist transported his weapons in his car onto post.

I've visited my son at his army post and they only thing you have to have to get on post is a post issued vehicle sticker and an ID. If you are a visitor, you have to show your car registration, insurance verification and driver's license then you get a one day pass.

THE VEHICLE IS NOT CHECKED FOR ILLEGAL ITEMS. So it was very easy to get a weapon on post as long as he had the proper passes.

“A Clinton Administration revision to Department of Defense Directive 5210.56  Army Regulation 190-14, dated 12 March 1993  permits the Secretary of the Army to authorize military personnel to carry firearms on a case by case basis for personal protection within the continental United States, but forbids military personnel to carry their own personal firearms and both requires a credible and specific threat before firearms be issued for military personnel to protect themselves. It further directs that firearms not be issued indiscriminately for that purpose.

While I agree whole-heartedly with the idea of allowing anyone who is capable to bear arms, the ban didn't originate with Clinton. It was like that all during my active duty service from 1970-1980 and on every base I can recall during the next 15 years spent working for the Navy in one capacity or other. It isn't new.

Dutchboy88 wrote:
“’He wouldnt have opened fire in the first place if he knew armed soldiers in the room would immediately shoot back.’

Then arm every man woman & child under the same logic.

I say we isolate the Islamocists. We did something like this in WWII with the Japanese because we did not know if they were going to do something or not. If they don’t like the isolation (until the war is over in 25 years), let them leave the country. Otherwise, you are inviting the trouble from every kook ball that gets mad at the traffic. One guy here in AZ just drove up to the photo radar car and shot the attendant through the window. He was mad at photo radar. So, is this better?”

Even the Supreme Court found that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s detention of American citizens of Japanese descent was unconstitutional. That you would recommend that makes me think you’re as much of a fascist as FDR.

The American solution is to let a free people defend themselves — and that certainly applies to the American army.

As for your traffic-light incident, for each of these there are ten times as many cases where a defensive gun use saved a life or stopped a crime. You must be reading only the Brady campaigns lying anti-gun propaganda.

“While I agree whole-heartedly with the idea of allowing anyone who is capable to bear arms, the ban didn’t originate with Clinton. It was like that all during my active duty service from 1970-1980 and on every base I can recall during the next 15 years spent working for the Navy in one capacity or other. It isn’t new. Frankly I don’t care whose fault it was. Fix it. Fix it now.”

Before Clinton it varied by service and by post. I think you’d find Army and Marine bases had different policies than Naval and Air Force bases

But I agree with your bottom line. Whether it’s DoD policy or command SNAFU, it needs to be stopped.

I'm with you 66% on that one. A bit more if you're including safety-conscious "children" like my 13-year-old cousin who bagged his first deer, with the gun he owns and shoots almost daily, at the age of nine.

Then ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL CHOICE OF armS TO every man woman & EMANCIPATED child under the same logic OF NATURAL LAW.

There, fixed. If people don’t choose to arm themselves for their own defense when they aren’t constrained, then they are no smarter than tree huggers who go into bear country with nothing more to shoot than a camera. SELF defense is not delegatable. But those who optionally-disarmed the victims created the environment where a single shooter could be highly effective. The criminal is at fault, but his effectiveness in mayhem is enhanced or inhibited by the official environment.

It is a logical fallacy to argue from the specific to the general (a photoradar inspired murderer is not a reason to change Arizona’s liberal self defense and weapon’s regulations). Millions of kook-balls get mad at traffic everyday with the only damage being to their own blood pressure but that is hardly news.

In general, allowing people to make their own choices regarding their own self reliance and safety is a character building experience, and a military base should be one of the better, safer learning laboratories for creating adults. Something the military might be expected to consistently encourage.

The over reaction by ‘isolation’ of innocent Japanese you cite is a dreadful black mark on our history and was never proven socially or militarily useful, and has been officially repudiated. But that doesn’t negate the argument in the general case that virulent and pathological subcultures such as some gangs, militant Islamism, or inter-generational communists on Medicare might benefit a free society by getting a free cattle-car ride before being treated for lead deficiency.

"The American solution is to let a free people defend themselves  and that certainly applies to the American army."

If this is that pot-smoking hazy America of Woodstock, then we don't want any. Hold hands and sing KumByYa with the Dums.

No US Military organization allows "free people" to defend themselves. They are trained to follow orders or people die (sounds like "A Few Good Men"). But, I've been an officer in the Army and it is not about the kind of self-determination that you describe. There are times when we are to come together and allow constitutional leadership to direct. There are times when they become too large, too powerful. The US Constituion is somewhere in the middle. And that is not facist.

To blame George W. Bush for gun control as the proximate cause of Islamic terror massacres is ludicrous.

"The over reaction by isolation of innocent Japanese you cite is a dreadful black mark on our history and was never proven socially or militarily useful, and has been officially repudiated."

It was not an "over reaction", but a grim reality of war. Had there been a massacre at Ft. Hood by a Japanese American, would you have said that? The "official" repudiation you cite is the PC reaction by a government you don't support because it has gun control. You support the government when it suits your own ends, but not when it causes you to bristle? There is a logical fallacy.

So you blame Bush instead of the Islamofacists wielding the guns? Bizarre.

“Orwellign photo-radar” is nothing more than finding a way to enforce a speed limit. If it were 150mph, guys that are angry with it would go 160mph. It is the inside rebellion that makes compliance with anything distasteful.

“So you blame Bush instead of the Islamofacists wielding the guns? Bizarre.”

I most certainly did not. You have confused me with someone else. I clearly stated the criminal is at fault. But our public servants are guilty of contributory negligence. Not wanting to discuss that is itself a form of political correctness.

Your historical/hysterical characterization of the Japanese internment without due process doesn’t hold up. There were no subsequent convictions of any interned Japanese for spying or sabotage. Even J. Edgar Hoover was against the move. Many of the grim realities of that war on the home front (bogus rationing, wage and price controls, women in the work force) sewed the seeds of a destabilized american family and culture and the growth of centrally planned big government intrusions that today conservatives have all but given up on fighting. As to PC reaction, that was supported and approved by none other than Ronald Reagan, hardly a practitioner of hollow PC glutei kissing.

I also indicated that the specific example of the mishandled Japanese internment is not an indictment of the limited and targeted use of such tactics with due process. Militant islamists represent a far more real and demonstrable threat than the Japanese farmers in California were. Mexican gangs represent an even greater threat to public safety and social stability than a few rock worshipping fetishists. In all cases, the bad guys are encouraged by the environment of victim disarmament zones.

If it takes more than a few seconds for someone with matching force to put suppressive fire on the perp, then the OODA loop is stalled at the Act stage long enough for mayhem to be successful.

Put another way, any time there is delay in the feedback loop (and here the feedback is to return fire to the threat) there will be failure to control. This is true of social control situations as much as with a servo mechanism. The dial-911 mentality always creates delay by removing the authority to act from the knowledge that there is a problem to be countered.

Fortunately these attacks are rare, so the policy is seen as pragmatic as well as PC feel-goodism. The policys effects on general social morals and character is far more corrosive than its failure as a practical security matter.

Specialization and division of labor works most efficiently and effectively in so many situations that the fallacy is in believing that self-defense can also be delegated to specialists. Centrally planned constraints and solutions will never solve this problem. At some point trust in individuals has to be applied. We trust cops not to get drunk and shoot each other, and the few that do are the exception. If the military can’t do that, perhaps they better dialog to consensus some more about the utility of their diversity programs (speaking of PC reactions). Japanese Americans have the lowest crime and homicide rate of any identifiable ethnic group. Perhaps the US military needs to rethink what cultures would best make up their ranks for attributes such as self control, loyalty, adaptability, social cohesion, and coping skills.

The problem we are facing(internal security) is an economic and moral problem as much as one of tactics. This has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting government or the military. It has to do with understanding that the character of the problem we are facing has more dimensions than 1)ID bad guy and 2)eliminate bad guy. But even if it were that simple, gun control as a blanket policy clearly works against that as an effective strategy.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.